I agree. He will say something to give the libs a reason to claim obstruction and impeachment.

I predict Mueller is going to cave on Wednesday. Something will come out of his mouth. He an Comey were two of a kind. Liars.

But Mueller DID have a conflict of interest

In the leftist view, if the prosecution cant prove a crime, the reason was that their investigation was obstructed in some way.. Now they need an investigation to find out what prevented the prosecution. One could go on forever with that.

Time for a splitup of the country is some way. Its totally divided anyway

exactly. of course they would argue that there would have been a conviction on a crime IF there hadnt been some sort of obstruction.. In this case collusion with russia to get dirt on an opposing candidate is NOT a crime in the frist place.

I am not so sure that I even think that "obstruction" should be a crime. Its up to the prosecutor to prove a person committed a crime. I dont think the defendant should even contribute anything to this process

The time has come to concentrate on the real evil, and that was hillary and the DNC during the last election.

My only question is as such, is there any way that you can obstruct justice when the investigation is begun on unlawful FISA information.
The only laws I saw that were broken were on the side of the so called investigation.
Illegal surveillance, illegal warrants issued by one of the most secretive courts in the land. And on and on.

Obstruction of Justice in and of itself is strictly in the eye of the beholder. The MSM, Liberals, Democrats and Trump haters all have never accepted that Trump is our President fair and square. Actually they will never accept a Republican President no matter who he/she might be. The only elections democrats agree with are those they win and I think it will be a long time before we allow a democrat socialist to ever occupy the WH again. These people are bat$hitcrazy.

"A picture is worth a thousand words"--by whoever said that.

It's a very concerning concept. Let's take Michael Flynn's obstruction of justice. He was incoming national security advisor. Obama had imposed some sanctions and it looked like Russia was going to retaliate. Instead of coming in with a 'food fight' in progress, he reached out to the the Russian Ambassador, apparently hinting that the Trump administration might have a different approach and maybe they should wait.

This was recorded by the "Russian collusion" investigation and when the FBI came and asked him about it he told them he hadn't. The question in my mind is what business the FBI had asking about diplomatic overtures of the incoming administration? There is no reason to consider it a crime (no one has EVER been convicted under the Logan Act).

We all understand that perjury is a crime and if you are "under oath" you are alerted to be honest in your comments. But Obstruction of Justice covers any discussion. The FBI agents interviewing Flynn (with the wiretaps in hand) made a point of being casual about the discussion to attempt to get him to "Obstruct them". And really, if they knew the contents of the call how did him not confirming it "Obstruct" anything?

Obstruction of Justice is one of those crimes that they can be pretty much guaranteed to get you for if you talk long enough. You don't even have to lie, they can just disagree and say that what you said was a lie.

Is obstruction of justice legal?

Perhaps the confusion lies in your mind. I certainly don't find anything he says as a "confusing thing that sounds racist". He never makes a statement that talks about a racial group.

This "disavow" racists is nonsense, he has done so repeatedly. If you are public figure lots of weird kooks will support you intermingled in the normal group. You have no obligation to spend your time disavowing them -- unless they become prominent.

https://images.app.goo.gl/Ck9GF7fu9Uf...

"Why do you call him a racist?"
He says confusing things that sound racist. It leaves open the legitimate possibility that he's just incoherent and meant something else. But that fact that he is slow to disavow racist supporters moves him solidly into racism. I have more respect for racists who wrongly believe the races are different are open about their incorrect beliefs than I do those who coyly make people uncomfortable and then say because their words were unclear you cannot prove they were racist.

"Since when"
I reject the premise the offensive racism are the same.

"In America we have something called burden of proof."
I'm not following. Does this mean if you cannot prove a criminal act, you there cannot be obstruction of justice? I could see it working that way to prevent prosecutors and police from tricking suspects into obstructing justice.

"there's a lot you don't understand, CG"
Yes. I have to search even the basic vocabulary.

Accusations and what-ifs. In America we have something called burden of proof.

Since when does criticizing people promoting ideologies that offend other people been actually racist? Racism is not some ideological package deal.

It is not racist to criticize someone for their opinions or their actions. It's only if you criticize them for the color of their skin. (We'll leave aside the fact that race really is an artificial construct for now).

So, who does Trump criticize because of the color of their skin?

Why do you call him a racist?

"I do not understand this." I guess there's a lot you don't understand, CG, and it shows. Good luck.

How about the size of his bigotry?
https://en.newsner.com/news/president.... Or
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump.... Or
https://images.app.goo.gl/WHHFNWxkv3P...

I do not understand this. It sounds like crazy talk. Part of it may be I have not followed it: I had never heard of a "baby Trump balloon". I just searched it and got a picture. My searching for "neo-communist", a word I had never heard, returns references to a Soviet political party in the 70s and a 00s movement for communism that despite its name sounds like the same old communism.

None of this has anything to do with President Trump's racist clown show. Other groups,e.g. neo-communists, are not responsible for his nasty, attention-seeking ways.